Rindge Avenue residents support changes proposed to Affordable Housing Overlay
We, the undersigned residents of affordable housing in Cambridge, strongly urge the City Council to support the passing of current proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing Overlay. With Cambridge rapidly becoming one of the most expensive cities in the country, it has become increasingly difficult to afford to live in this great city, and affordable housing is critical.
We understand that affordable housing is controversial, as there are concerns about parking, noise and the size of buildings. From our perspective, these concerns pale in comparison to the value provided: We get a roof over our heads, don’t have to put all of our paychecks into rent, get to raise our kids in a great school system and continue living in our homes without fear of displacement. We support allowing more families to have the same opportunities. The amendments to the overlay allow for more affordable housing and we strongly believe that this is the right path.
Furthermore, the conversation on these amendments has focused partially on how terrible larger affordable-housing buildings are – in a deeply problematic way. It is concerning when opponents of larger buildings claim that our buildings are poor-quality housing without ever having visited or lived in them. We have many large, wonderful affordable-housing apartments, including LBJ, Manning, Millers River and Rindge Towers; they have wonderful amenities, and we love our neighbors. We ask that you please stop referring to homes and buildings such as ours as slums or awful housing with no community. It is offensive. These buildings are our homes, and they provide us with access to the opportunities that make this city great.
We urge the City Council to pass currently proposed amendments to Affordable Housing Overlay zoning to allow more families to call Cambridge home. By doing so, it will help ensure that everyone in our community has the chance to thrive and enjoy the many benefits that Cambridge has to offer.
Thank you for listening.
Selika Akter, Obidul Haque, Sirajul Hoque, Mijanur Jowel, Hasina Mamtaz, Sitara Naheed, Abdur Rahim Patwary, Atiqur Rahman, Farjana Rahman and M. Saifullah, Rindge Avenue
People living in affordable housing support it, people living in mansions oppose it.
Fight the good fight friends.
cambridgeresident: why do you keep fanning the flames? no one concerned lives in mansions. If someone has questions, I hope they would be allowed to ask without fear of ridicule. BTW- the three Rindge towers are built on 10 acres with a park, parking, stores, transportation and space. the proposed buildings of 25 stories may be on as little as one acre with no setbacks, green space, no transitions into abutting neighborhoods. And trees may have to be cut down. Is that environmental equity? Not all development is appropriate for ALL spaces. And just because one thinks that doesn’t mean they are against the AHO. I would rather have more 7 story buildings around than one big one shoehorned in the wrong place. That doesn’t make me against affordable housing. There are other moving parts to consider.
All of the 63 speakers who spoke tonight supported affordable housing, and over half of the speakers opposed the new skyscraper AHO amendment proposal, preferring smaller height units that fit in. Several of these speakers self-identified as affordable housing residents. They focused on how important it was for them to live in good quality housing with green spaces, parking, and other needs.
@cambridgeresident I don’t live in a mansion and I don’t support the overlay. Personally, I find that one of the reasons that people like living here is the fact that unlike a lot of other American cities that were torn up in the last hundred years, the majority of Cambridge is old, small, and human-scaled. And personally, I believe that adding towers and large housing blocks is incredibly counter-productive and would detract from the quality of life of the city. People like the 3-5 storey walk-ups and apartments that exist because they fit in and don’t impose themselves on any one area.
Take for instance Kendall square which in the last 10 years has had several enormous towers put up. Who spends their evenings in Kendall? Who goes out of their way to got to kendall? The place purely exists as a revenue source for MIT and housing for MBA students who don’t really care about what the are a they live in is like. The block is now a cavern where the sun never really hits the ground, and has been bought by Google MIT Boeing and the like in the towers.
I personally do not want to see Cambridge become Manhattan. I don’t want it to become caverns between gigantic buildings. And I don’t wan to see places people built removed and replaced by places that a bureaucrat or developer “thought” that people wanted. I’d rather see things like accessory dwelling units, tripple-deckers, six-plexes be propped up by small developers and other people.
Anyway, rant over. TL;DR, small, human-scaled, and low-mid rise good, tall blocks of monotony bad IMO.
@trevorl because, for some, it is a call-to-arms for more reactionary class warfare.
Hello Rindge Ave. neighbors! This North Cambridge resident also strongly supports the AHO expansion and can’t wait to welcome more residents to the neighborhood.
@trevorl the AHO extension only applies to subsidized affordable housing. Given the financing is done through grants, there is a limited supply of these, and so the goal is to maximize how much housing we get in the limited, very-expensive land that gets built.
So even if this passes we won’t end up with canyons, because most construction will continue to be commercial construction which has different, much lower limits.
Also it’s worth realizing that most of the 4-5 story buildings that you like are illegal to build right now, because of restrictive zoning. So the things you like are actually not possible, lots of places in Cambridge it’s only legal to build single family housing, or at best duplexes.
So for example I live in Baldwin neighborhood, lots of 4.5 story buildings, used to live in one, all very nice—but you can’t build any more because of zoning. So every time a house is bought it gets renovated into a 1 or 2 family house of exact same size, and we don’t get extra housing.
Once the AHO structures (or any other ones) get built, they become the base (the context) around which new building forms and scale is decided for appropriateness. On multi-family residences, one can still build them anyplace in the city. In current A districts all one must do is apply for a special permit, show the plans, and address any issues that may arise. Citywide, when a large building burns down (or needs replacement), one can build it back to the same foundation size and height of the original. This is perfectly legal. It is wonderful to walk around the Baldwin neighborhood and see all the historic homes there. It is one of the densest sections of the city. A lot of the Baldwin apartments seem to now be occupied by Harvard law school students. If they were to be housed instead in university housing across the river, more space would be available for Cambridge renters and housing prices could come down.
If all you are saying is true then why does it continue to be illegal to construct the buildings you describe in most of the city?
Talk about boy who cried wolf. “This building is ugly”, “not enough elevators”, “too much traffic”, “the building’s karmic alignment is off”.
The side that opposes housing construction in this city has lost any credibility with those who support through constant goal-post moving and outright disingenuousness. Many who support the AHO have come to understand that there is no good faith argument being had here, despite what you constantly claim.
A majority of current Cambridge buildings are illegal under current zoning. Maybe current zoning is too restrictive.
Status quo, I could see Cambridge rents and housing doubling from these levels over the next 10 years. The rich will do just fine in getting the housing they want. The question is if we want policy that enables the middle and lower income to continue living here
What policies do you propose to enable “middle income” people to continue to live here?
And roughly, today, how do you define middle income?
Yes to the AHO. People need housing. High-rises near MBTA stations are the right idea. It will add housing without adding as many cars.
People who say they “like the city as it is” or it will “ruin the character of the city” are selfish. People should not have housing because others like a different aesthetic? Wow.
Listening in on the City Council meeting public comments now, and affordable housing opponents are using the kind of language this piece politely and reasonably asks everyone to refrain from.
People are rightfully ashamed to admit they care more about “neighborhood character”than actual human beings, so they dress their opposition up in faux concern for affordable housing residents – over those residents’ objection. Absolutely gross.
“….a pivotal piece of legislation that has garnered extensive discussion.” If the AHO has done anything around town, it has polarized folks into two camps: for and against. It’s a divisive piece of legislation that makes consensus all but impossible.
“strict design guidelines and community engagement requirements.” Hmmm…let’s take a case in point: WinnDevelopment’s proposed 2 slab proposal at Walden Square. One slab/building, 65 units large, destroys Walden Square Road, turning a massive chunk of it into a tunnel, yes, a tunnel. With parking underneath, and a narrow walkway off to the side. The AHO has enabled WinnDevelopment to do whatever it wants to maximize profit – which includes the unsafe, dangerous, and – frankly – ugly tunnel scheme of one building. The other building eats up green space, but more on that below. As for community engagement, Walden Sq. residents have been subject to years of intimidation by Winn’s management. Why would they risk organizing into a unified body when their landlord literally lords over them? Hundreds of these folks live already difficult lives, struggling in neglected apartments, living several to a room. Winn’s “community engagement” meetings were so poorly attended that there were more Winn people in the room than Walden tenants. Especially vexing is the cultural and language chasm between the Winn folks (white, educated, English speaking) and the few Walden tenants present (Afr-Am, Hindi, Somali, Ethiopian, non-English speaking).
“…ensuring no neighborhood is left behind.” Please, leave us behind. Must city hall put pedal to the metal on every nook and cranny in Cambridge, green-lighting AHO-based development in the name of progress? Fortune magazine just named “our fair city” (thanks Tom and Ray!) the #1 best place to live in the USA. Is that because of the Manhattan-like structures going up in Kendall or is it the city’s European flavor, its walkability, it’s big-little-small town vibe? Obviously, the latter.
“a silver bullet solution” (meaning: the AHO). Quite the contrary. The AHO attempts to be just that: a draconian piece of legislation designed to penetrate through standard time tested democratic deliberative processes. It’s the private sector (developers) and city hall pressing the panic button on what we all agree is a nation-wide housing crisis. Panic generally does not lead to reasonable outcomes.
“we anticipate only three to five larger buildings to be constructed over the next decade, spread out across the city.” Really? In that case – WinnDevelopment already has two larger buildings planned at Walden Square. That leaves only two or three buildings left over the next ten years? I think not.
“When you have a crisis you go to the experts.” Only experts? An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about absolutely nothing. My point: experts are great, and so are generalists, like human beings wishing to live in spaces they are proud of, protective of. Places they do not want to leave.
“We simply do not have enough land to build four-story buildings and meet our housing needs.” From a Globe article published June 13, 2023. “Housing authorities are legally allowed to operate anywhere in the state, not just in their home communities, so long as they comply with local approval processes and zoning rules. So, the authority in Cambridge – where costs are high and housing is already fairly dense – is in talks with nearby communities such as Medford to build there as well.” Excellent initiative! A most creative approach.
“…buildings can be taller but not wider, thereby occupying less space on the lot and allowing for more open areas.” No kidding? One wonders what the clusterf***k coming out of the Yerxa underpass at Walden Square will be like when that building over the road goes up next to the already existing tower. And Winn’s second building, right next to that…well, enough said.
“In fact, residents of Fresh Pond Apartments [a.k.a. Rindge Towers, a.k.a., the projects] wrote a letter in support of the AHO.” Uh-huh. Ten residents to be exact. Ten residents out of the several hundred occupants of what some have come to call The Trinity, though I’m not sure why.
“AHO buildings are nothing like this [poor construction, underfunded, away from transit, no amenities]. Its buildings are on main corridors, surrounded by retail, parks, transit, and open space.” Winn’s Walden Square plans are not on a main corridor, there’s no retail nearby, no subway and no major bus lines, though there is a park (Danehy). How much open space will remain after 100 units are built remains to be seen – but I am confident in stating: not much.
“…a lasting legacy…” That much is true: once a ten story building goes up you can’t tear it down. It’s there for a hundred years. It’s the wrong legacy, folks. Antithetical to Cambridge’s character. We can – and must – do better than surrendering to the AHO, regardless of the version. We must hold developers and the city accountable.
Thank you!
Federico Muchnik
https://chng.it/9ww95MSZTK